Vocabulary from President Obama's Sept. 10 Speech on Syria

Over the past two years, what began as a series of peaceful protests against the repressive regime of Bashar al-Assad has turned into a brutal civil war.

In that time, America has worked with allies to provide humanitarian support, to help the moderate opposition, and to shape a political settlement.

The images from this massacre are sickening: Men, women, children lying in rows, killed by poison gas.

As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.

On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.

On that terrible night, the world saw in gruesome detail the terrible nature of chemical weapons, and why the overwhelming majority of humanity has declared them off-limits -- a crime against humanity, and a violation of the laws of war.

In World War I, American GIs were among the many thousands killed by deadly gas in the trenches of Europe.

Because these weapons can kill on a mass scale, with no distinction between soldier and infant, the civilized world has spent a century working to ban them.

The Assad regime has now admitted that it has these weapons, and even said they’d join the Chemical Weapons Convention, which prohibits their use.

I don’t think we should remove another dictator with force -- we learned from Iraq that doing so makes us responsible for all that comes next.

When dictators commit atrocities, they depend upon the world to look the other way until those horrifying pictures fade from memory.

As the ban against these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas, and using them.

And it could be easier for terrorist organizations to obtain these weapons, and to use them to attack civilians.

And a failure to stand against the use of chemical weapons would weaken prohibitions against other weapons of mass destruction, and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran -- which must decide whether to ignore international law by building a nuclear weapon, or to take a more peaceful path.

And that is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interests of the United States to respond to the Assad regime’s use of chemical weapons through a targeted military strike.

The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regime’s ability to use them, and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate their use.

So even though I possess the authority to order military strikes, I believed it was right, in the absence of a direct or imminent threat to our security, to take this debate to Congress.

I will not pursue a prolonged air campaign like Libya or Kosovo.

Any other retaliation they might seek is in line with threats that we face every day.

It’s true that some of Assad’s opponents are extremists.

We’ll also give U.N. inspectors the opportunity to report their findings about what happened on August 21st.

For sometimes resolutions and statements of condemnation are simply not enough.